Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do you have broadband at home? A permanent move to e.g. Sky Glass may not fit with your desire to keep your digibox,, but can you move the items you most want off the digibox? If so, Sky Glass might suit you. You might ask Sky to loan you a “puck” and provide access as an interim measure. another option might be using Sky Go, at least short term, to give you access to some of the Sky programming while awaiting the dish being sorted.
    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
    • Yes - ignore. Because of another MET victim today I looked at all our MET cases back to June 2014 ... yes, 10 years. They have never dared take a motorist to court and argue their case before a judge.  They have started the odd court case, but as a means of trying to intimidate the motorist into coughing up, when the motorist defended and refused to give in it was MET who bottled it and discontinued.
    • Unpaid wages should be pretty straightforward if you did the work. Don't be intimidated. You need only show you were due money, and did not get money.   The risk is that they have no money to pay you (and legal fees) - frankly a solicitor maybe be costing them more than your claim is for and I might have expected them to make a commercial decision to settle before this point regardless of the merits of the case.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell/Hampton Statutory Demand *** WON + COSTS ***


HighFly
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4807 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Cobbler:

 

A kitchen worker that possesses no useful skills and is considered absolute rock bottom in the culinary field. This person is not deserving of the term shoemaker. A cobbler is characterized by frequent burning of foods, tasteless end products, unsightly plated entrees, poor sanitation practices, and a general sense of worthlessness.

 

Chef 1: "Did you taste that garbage Philly put out for the reception?"

 

Chef 2: "Yes, unfortunately. Apparently, the best he could muster."

 

Chef 3: "Poor b*****d thinks he's a Chef; just a cobbler after all."

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D:D:Dcongratulations....payed at last

 

lying till the end.

did they not state on wednesday,

that they had already payed you direct.

 

well you never know with these thick idiots you may get another delayed in post cheque on monday.

 

no disrespect to HF cause he deserves it

but would PMS 4 ENGLAND if the court said the cheque bounced:eek:

 

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

He just used the regular N323 warrant request form but had to write to the court to get this issued - use the SD no of 2009 where it asks for a case number. The fee is £100 which gets added to their tab.

 

An order against one of their bank accounts might be fun also.

 

Lowell don't pay any one unless its squeezed out them.

 

Good Luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spitfire has beaten me to it, and is of course correct.

 

No additional costs can be added.

 

I've still not got my cheque though. :mad:

 

They have, apparently, paid into the court, so we now wait for it to clear....

 

Good luck with your own case.

 

Rgds

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm delighted to put this thread to bed with news that a cheque arrived from Leeds C.C. this morning for the full warrant amount.

 

Doubles all round Jimmy !!

 

Rgds

 

HF

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Sorry to bump this back up to the top, but I have some words of reassurance for those who might be getting a little impatient with the speed at which Lowell operate.

 

Today, nearly 13 months after this thread was put to bed, I received not one but two letters from Ms Barnard, informing me that despite contacting the original lender, they have failed to supply the requested information. It is therefore through the generosity of their own heart (yeah, irony), that they will no longer be pursuing the debt and that my credit file will be adjusted accordingly.

 

Keep the faith CAG-ers; they get there eventually !!

 

HF

 

ps, nice to see SAM still here ! :whoo:

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...